This is what happens when you refuse to use math to engage an issue like GBI: pure blather.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/economy/universal-basic-income-poverty.html …
-
-
Hardly anyone seems to worry about the incentives baked into *that*.
-
But might there be a whole lot more incentive to work under a small UBI ($500/mo?) plus a 20% or 30% marginal tax rate--no aid clawbacks?
-
Ultimately, this is a question of math. The lower end of the income curve is subject to objective constraints, and they're absurd right now.
-
But you can fiddle with that curve without changing the middle or top of it much. $5000 to every citizen is a fiction.
-
There will be a cost, but far less than NYT glurge implies. And could releasing the poor from welfare traps help them be more productive?
-
Incentives matter to the poor as much as the rich, if not more so. Some can do more. Some can't. But most are trapped under what we have.
-
3c) The thought of putting bureaucrats out of work and setting fire to their forms warms my heart. But more soberly...
-
...obviously you can't dissolve all the other systems of aid. The severely disabled need more than $500 a month!
-
But you can remove an awful lot of dead weight--people printing out forms so others can fill them in--and a lot of humiliation and abuse.
-
For many, humiliation feels like a necessary part of the system--the weak need to be punished so they'll be less weak! This rarely works.
-
Humiliation & the whims of a paper machine break you down into hopeless passivity. Ease up on that, and improve incentives...it might work?
-
Some poor people are hopeless. Some people are awful! So what? Does it make you feel better to piss on them? Does it help? Really?
-
OK, I'm done.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
you're ringing the bell right there. Have you considered that it may be intentional?
-
Mm, 'intentional' is tricky when describing collective action. It's a compromise between 'give ppl benefits' and 'take them away'.
-
provided, you want reliable users (2/2)
-
yeah, no doubt that's part of it. many different interests being served or not served.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This is true, and underexamined, and not really related to basic income. Biggest benefit losses aren't programs we could close.
-
Worse, there's not really a good alternative to the split of means-testing and not, where program inclusion is binary. Frustrating
-
Yeah, and I didn't really touch on rationing-by-hassle or -by-anti-lottery (randomly 'losing' paperwork etc.).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.